Don't Blame The U.n.

September 05, 2004

The United Nations still matters. Three reports on two different parts of the world last week show why.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the Security Council that Sudan's government has failed to keep its commitment to restrain renegade militias terrorizing civilians in the Darfur region. He called for an international force of at least 3,000 to protect civilians.

The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency disclosed that Iran has assembled and tested the major components of centrifuges that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Iran bought the technology from Pakistan.

The same U.N. agency confirmed that in 2000 South Koreans secretly produced highly enriched uranium that could be used to make nuclear weapons. The government blamed the illegal production on ``rogue'' scientists.

So what if the United Nations has raised those red flags? Critics who find little use for the international organization frequently raise the dismissive question. They find it to be a paper tiger or, worse, an organization that cannot be trusted to right wrongs.

But righting wrongs requires commitments from U.N. member states. It presumes agreement on what constitutes unacceptable conduct and a course of action whether directed against a friend or foe of the big powers.

For example, it's easy for our government to push for U.N. sanctions against Iran and North Korea. But Washington isn't inclined to castigate Pakistan, South Korea and Israel for their nuclear programs.

The United States isn't alone in selective criticism of offending governments. Russia, China and the European powers are also choosy, treating errant friends more kindly than errant adversaries.

But frequent failures to agree on a course of action don't make the United Nations irrelevant. Leaders of the organization serve at the behest of its members. They investigate reports of atrocities in Darfur and nuclear weapons development in Iran, Pakistan and North and South Korea. It's up to U.N. members, principally the five permanent members of the Security Council, to rise to the occasion -- to act jointly and decisively. Sometimes they do; often they don't.

Sudan presents an opportunity for a constructive multilateral response to a human rights disaster. In July, the Security Council imposed a 30-day deadline on Khartoum to disarm the Janjaweed and to identify key leaders of those militias for prosecution. Last week, Mr. Annan said Khartoum has made insufficient progress.

Why not send an international force as soon as possible? The United Nations has no standing army; its members do.

According to U.N. estimates, 30,000 Sudanese have died and 1.2 million have fled their homes in the western Sudan region of Darfur. This is an opportunity for U.N. members to act jointly and decisively. If they fail, don't blame Mr. Annan and his bureaucrats. They did what was asked of them: They investigated, reported, confirmed and recommended a course of action. The rest is up to the Security Council.